DHARAM PAL KOHLI Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner in this writ petition is assailing an action initiated by the respondent No. 1 State Bank of India under the Securltisatlon and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and the rules framed thereunder.

(2.) Petitioner has assailed the initiation of the proceedings on various grounds. However, petitioner's counsel has submitted that respondent Bank is employing agency of muscle man in order to make recovery under the aforesaid Act and the rules which is illegal and unconstitutional act. Procedure of law cannot be allowed to be misuse and recovery cannot be handed over to the muscleman, who may recover the amount by threat or by unlawful means. The recovery has to be made only in accordance with the provisions of the Act and rules, in peaceful manner. He has further pointed out that petitioner is ready to make deposit as per the amount determined on the date on which account was declared NPA and petitioner is ready to make the offer within 7 days inclusive of the other amount which he has to pay. The Bank may be directed to consider it reasonably before ordering the auction of the house.

(3.) Shri Rajesh Maindiretta and Shri Sameer Seth, learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that employment of enforcement agencies is permissible as provided under Rule 8 of the Rules framed under thee Rules of 2002. For employment of enforcement agencies advertisement was issued. The enforcement agency which has been employed is not having any past criminal record and the enforcement agency is appointed by Board of Director at the highest level. The action will be taken in accordance with law without use of any force or violence or unlawful methods. Only symbolical possession has to be taken at this stage as property has not been, auctioned as yet and symbolical possession has already been taken without use of any force. Thus allegation that muscle man were used is baseless. It is also submitted by the counsel for the respondents that petitioner is having the remedy under Section 17 of the Act of 2002 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal by way of filing an appeal/application, hence in view of availability of alternative efficacious remedy, no case for interference is made out. However, it is assured that in case any reasonable offer is made that will be considered in accordance with the prevailing guidelines.